No, Mr. Brownlee, you are missing the point. The Book Mistress’s response on how to read Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves is a perfectly reasonable one. We hard-core readers often forget that some people are thrown off guard by anything diverging from a traditional structure. Thus, a “normal” explanation for how to read something that seems so apparent to us might be of great value for them.
This doesn’t take anything away from idiosyncratic readers who are prepared to skip around from middle to end to beginning, nor does this sully those who wish to consult “The Navison Record” exclusively for answers.
We can read how we want to, we can leave your read behind
‘Cause your friends read here and I read there
And the reads are all just fine
Thank you, Ed. This makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Isn’t a better question, “Why should I read House of Leaves? And isn’t that answer, “You shouldn’t”?
Ummm. Let’s see what my response would be to this post.
Some books are not to be trusted to the unmotivated of this world. I remember a friend of mine saying: “I bought Ulysses.” “Umm, you can’t read Ulysses.” “Sure i can! I wanted something to read at the beach.”
Doesn’t that make you wince?
Sure there are many ways to read a book and not all of them are to the liking of the literati but cmon! Reading A House of Leaves, or any other book of its stature, superficially is like taking a Ferrari up to the corner to buy groceries. Like taking an inflatable pool to cross the Atlantic. It wasn’t designed for such a ride. Use it as it was meant to be used. To its full potential.
ps. i understand the principle of marydell’s post, and i would have done the same, but really, i am with Brownlee on this one. Oh, and he should know that it is Navidson godammit! Edit your postor suffer some sort of terrible wrath!!